My dear friends and fellow South Africans,

"I believe the central objective of the new politics we need should be a massive, sweeping, radical redistribution of power from state to citizens; from the government to parliament; from judges to the people; from bureaucracy to democracy". Is this passage lifted directly from one of my many speeches on the subject of devolving power to the people since 1994? Or was it purloined from the canon of fine speeches by my old friend Tony Leon whose thinking corresponds with mine on this issue? 

The answer is neither. It is from an address last week to the Open University by David Cameron, the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition in the UK, in the wake of the expenses scandal which has shaken the 'Mother of Parliaments' to its ancient 300 year-old-foundation. 

I've quoted Cameron to illustrate the point that the pyramid concentration of power with the executive at the apex is not a uniquely South African phenomenon; it is an inexorable tendency in all parliamentary democracies which must be checked as the tentacles of the executive intrude into every nook and cranny of society. 

It is not a left or right or good or bad government indicator; it is  simply the serpentine nature of the exercising of power everywhere.  

When the power of parliament wanes, the power of the State increases exponentially: the nation slips into "elective dictatorship" mode. 

I sometimes fear that the case to bolster parliament's role as the "real engine of accountability", mainly made by those of us on the opposition benches, is perceived to be a blunt sledgehammer with which to bludgeon the ruling-party. That is a pity because a properly functioning parliament would benefit the ruling-party and good governance most of all. 

Perchance, the theme for this week's Opening of Parliament is the clunky-phrased: "Parliament entrenching people-centred democracy in achieving development goals". Two mandates flow from this: 

"Parliament's function of monitoring and evaluation over the Executive sits at the centre of its activities" and "Parliament has to be an enabler of public participation." 

First, a word again about the electoral system which elects members of parliament in the first place. In 2002, when, as Minister of Home Affairs, I chaired the task team on electoral reform, I said the "time was ripe" to reform the electoral system to restore a constituency link. If it was ripe seven years ago, today it would be the equivalent of giving mouth to mouth resuscitation to an ailing institution. 

The IFP has long called for a hybrid electoral system like the Alternative Vote Plus or the Additional Member System which balances representation and proportionality. In such a model voters would choose a constituency MP, and a further tier of MPs selected on a more proportional basis. The growing gulf between the governors and governed is growing. 

The crisp point here is that MPs cannot credibly hold the executive to account if they are not accountable to the people themselves. The fascinating upside aspect of the expenses scandal in the UK has been the awesome firepower of ordinary folk in the constituency parties to depose arrogant Members of Parliament. Up to fifty percent of sitting MPs are expected to be shown the red card at the next election. And in the United States, the electorate has the "power of recall" which allows disgruntled voters to force a by-election. 

And could we not, as Cameron proposes, open up the legislative process to outsiders by sending out text alerts on the progress of parliamentary bills and by posting proceedings on YouTube?  It seems to me that politicos, with the notable exception of Barack Obama, have not grasped the impact of instant information upon the democratic process. 

We also need to strengthen committees and should not chairpersons of portfolio committees be chosen by a ballot of all backbench MPs? We must also end the compliant role of parliament by giving MPs free votes during the consideration of bills at committee stage. MPs should also be handed the crucial power of deciding the timetable of bills. 

And if organisers of a petition collected enough support, should they be able to get their idea debated in the National Assembly? This kind of representative democracy might also begin to square the often stated conundrum that it is futile to try and transpose the Westminster style system to Cape Town. It's just a thought. 

We also need to, I believe, change the procedure for private members'  bills. Under the current arrangements, private members' bills almost never become law unless they have explicit government backing. I saw this vividly last year when I tabled the 18th Constitution Amendment Bill to separate the Head of State from the Head of Government, establishing both a President and Prime Minister at the recent general election. 

On Friday 12 March 2008, I presented the Bill to the Private Members'   Committee in the green leather bound and oak panelled surroundings of the Old Assembly Chamber. Only five days later I heard that the Committee had rejected the Bill, despite the fact that there was considerable support for it in the ranks of the ruling-party. Politics - party politics - got in the way again. 

Until we transform the culture of parliament along the sleek lines of accountability and transparency, we will continue to fail our constitutional mandate to be a 'check-and-balance' on the Executive, and to be the institution where alternatives are born.  

Yours sincerely,

Prince Mangosuthu Buthelezi MP